INSTITUTE BRIEF

Volume 21, Number 29 October 2014

Use the Most Productive Energy Source Possible

By Deborah D. Thornton

An important part of the energy discussion, which gets confused in the global-warming debate, is
that different sources of energy are appropriate for different needs. Gasoline and diesel fuel made
from oil are the most reliable, efficient, cost-effective way to power vehicles and other motorized
equipment. We also have a reliable, safe, and easily replicable delivery system. When you need a car
or truck to run, you turn it on and it runs, aside from a stray breakdown.

Even before it becomes gasoline, oil is a critical input for making plastic and many other chemistry-
driven products, all benefiting humankind. Important health and safety products such as Plexiglas,
artificial limbs, aspirin, and rubbing alcohol are oil based. And recreational and convenience
products such as scotch tape, soccer balls, guitar strings, pacifiers, fabric softener, hair color, lipstick,
and shaving cream might not be necessary to our existence, but undeniably make the world a
better and more comfortable place.

Another evil fossil-fuel-based energy source is coal. Many things are made from coal-powered
energy. For example, steel is necessary for safe and secure factories, offices, and homes, yet we cant
produce steel without coal. Should coal really be an enemy of the environmentalists?

A key consideration in this environmental discussion must be the amount of power generated by the
source. Is a power source effective? Does it produce more energy to do work than it consumes?
In order to be effective, an energy source must generate, and we must be able to capture and use,
more power than is used in consuming it. This is called energy density and power density. As
high school physics teaches, energy is the ability or capacity to do work, and power is the rate of
doing that work.1 In order to be economically useful, the energy and power produced by something
needs to be high. The energy produced by many historical sources (wood) and renewable sources
(ethanol, wind, and solar) is generally very low. These are not very dense or economically productive
power sources. This is often ignored by environmentalists who want to end fossil-fuel use.

Most current renewable fuel sources have low energy and power numbers hence the problems.
For example, the power density of wind is only about 1.2 watts per square meter (W/m2).2 The
largest off-shore wind field, the London Array in the ocean south of England, only has a power
density of about 2.5 W/m2. Those wind turbines standing in the Iowa cornfields are not any better.

Because current solar panel technology is very ineffective at converting sunlight into electricity, the
power density of solar power is only about 5 W/m2. Even in the desert, with sunlight shining all
day, every day, energy from the sun originally has a power density of only about 200 W/m2. The
energy captured by solar panels is only a tenth of that, about 20 W/m2. The power density of sun
in Iowa is about 170 W/m2 at its June/July peak, which because of panel placement and continuity
issues results in a captured power density of about 5 W/m2.3

A Publication of: Public Interest Institute at Iowa Wesleyan College

600 North Jackson Street, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa 52641-1328
If you wish to support our efforts, please donate by sending a check to us at the above address.
If you wish to donate by credit card, please go to our website: www.LimitedGovernment.org.
PII is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization and all contributions are tax deductible.
E-Mail: Public.Interest.Institute@LimitedGovernment.org
Phone: 319-385-3462 Fax: 319-385-3799
Volume 21, Number 29 October 2014
Yet some activists claim Iowa can be the next solar king, claiming that a solar array in Iowa can
produce a comparable amount of electricity as one located in Miami, Houston, (or) Atlanta.4
The interesting thing to note is that photos of solar panels show acres and acres across good
Iowa farmland, which certainly can be used for more productive purposes. There are still starving
children in the world. At least farmers can still grow crops near the bottoms of wind towers.

A similar problem exists in using Iowa crops to make bio-

Power Density
fuels such as ethanol the power density is low (0.05 W/ 0.05 W/m 2

m2). Some argue that converting grain food to animal food

2
1.2 W/m
2
3.0 - 10.0 W/m
is an inefficient use of crops and a poor way to feed people. 6.7 W/m 2

If feeding animals is bad, converting corn to ethanol is an

1000 W/m
27 W/m
2

even more inefficient use of our crops.5 Only government 28 W/m 2

2
34 W/m
subsidies make it economically viable. If Legislators and 56 W/m
2

business people want to support the diversion of corn to

make ethanol, fine but they must make informed decisions and understand the issues.

In contrast, the power density of natural gas is 28 W/m2 and that of modern gas and coal-fired
power plants often near 1,000 W/m2. Even a small propane-powered home generator has a power
density of almost 1,000 W/m2.6 If, as a consumer, you are comparing the bang for your buck from
solar, wind, or ethanol the power density factor will overwhelmingly indicate that gas, coal, or
propane should be used for electricity and heat generation. However, most people dont know or
think about energy density and power density when they turn on the lights or start their cars
they just want them to work.

These facts lead to the conclusion that we must bring the discussion of power density to the
forefront of energy sector economics and planning. Just as we all appreciate cars which get better
gas mileage and cost less to run, we must consider the amount of power we get from original
sources when choosing that energy source, and choose the most productive source.

If Iowans truly want to go off the grid, help the environment, and be energy efficient, they should
invest in home generators and use propane or natural gas. They should encourage the use of oil and
coal, not discourage it. Finally, they should not use ethanol or install solar panels or wind turbines.

(Endnotes)
1
Work, Energy, Power definitions, Hyper Physics, <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html> accessed
on June 27, 2014.
2
Robert Bryce, The Real Problem with Renewables, Forbes, May 11, 2010, <http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/
renewables-energy-oil-economy-opinions-contributors-robert-bryce.html> accessed on June 27, 2014.
3
Robert Wilson, The Future of Energy: Why Power Density Matters, The Energy Collective, August 8, 2013,
<http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/257481/why-power-density-matters> accessed on July 6, 2014.
4
Solar Energy in Iowa, Iowa Environmental Council, p. 3, <http://iaenvironment.org/documents/2014/solarpub/
RealPotentialReadyToday_pub_web.pdf> accessed May 15, 2014.
5
Robert Bryce.
6
Robert Wilson.

Deborah D. Thornton is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute, Mount Pleasant, Iowa.
Contact her at Public.Interest.Institute@LimitedGovernment.org.

Permission to reprint or copy in whole or part is granted, provided a version of this credit line is used:
"Reprinted by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute."
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of
Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry.